Session Information
16 SES 08 A, Diversity in Technology Enhanced Learning
Paper Session
Contribution
The UK government’s vision of radical reform envisages a healthy, safe, enjoyable and fulfilling life for all children and young people irrespective of background or other circumstances. This is pronounced in the country’s educational ethos which highlights the rights of those children with special educational needs (SEN). In Northern Ireland, the new Revised Curriculum is committed to inclusion and strives to provide an educational environment where all pupils achieve their full potential. Inclusion is a very broad and wide-ranging term. However this paper will focus on issues related to information and communications technology and how these can help in the pursuit of providing support to children with SEN.
Research reveals the huge potential of technology with positive results emerging from the use of interactive whiteboards (Jamerson, 2002; Salinitri, Smith & Clovis, 2000), internet and multimedia technologies (Seale, 2001; Johnston & Hegarty, 2003), computer and video conferencing (Abbott, Austin, Mulkeen & Metcalfe, 2004) and digital video and photography (Somekh et al., 2006). However, the majority of work in this area has mainly focused on the role of assistive technologies in enhancing the capabilities of individuals with disabilities in situations where supportive environments already exist. However there is limited research on the impact of large scale nationwide ICT developments in education that have been adopted in special schools. Furthermore, existing research seems to fail to sufficiently consider the combined social, historical and contextual factors embedded within a learning experience.
This study seeks to investigate the tensions created by the implementation of an online learning environment recently introduced across all mainstream and special schools in Northern Ireland. Taking the perspective of students with learning difficulties, it aims to explore the resulting challenges and most importantly, probe into the methods employed to overcome them. It thus attempts to achieve a better understanding of how mainstream technologies can be adapted to the needs of this particular student population.
A large number of ICT studies have adopted Activity Theory (Leont’ev, 1978, 1981; Engeström, 1987) as their core theoretical framework (eg. Basharina, 2007; Hardman, 2007; Russell & Schneiderheinze, 2005). It is particularly useful as it provides a clear perspective for the coherent analysis of learning environments. In fact, it allows researchers to capture and observe the intricacies of classroom practice and the dynamics of working in a special educational setting. Additionally, it enables researchers to clarify and extract insights on data from the various participants in collaborative learning activities within their own habitual setting. An activity system is a logical combination of interrelated entities, including a subject, an object and layers of historically accumulated tools, patterns of division of labour and rules. The aim of this study is to identify these characteristics or nodes within the activity theory model in order to look for patterns of inter-nodal connections in the activity of learners.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Abbott, L., Austin, R., Mulkeen, A. & Metcalfe, N. (2004). The global classroom: Advancing cultural awareness in special schools through collaborative work using ICT. European tyfJournal of Special Needs Education, 19(2), 229-240. Basharina, O. K., (2007). An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 11, 2, 82-103. DfES, (2005). Harnessing technology. Transforming learning and children’s services. Nothingham: DfES. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Florian, L., & Hegarty, J., (2004). ICT and special educational needs: a tool for inclusion. Buckinghamshire: Open University Press. Hardman, J., (2007). Making sense of the meaning maker: tracking the object of activity in a computer-based mathematics lesson using activity theory. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 3, 4, 110-130. Jamerson, J. (2002). Helping all children learn: Action research project. Retrieved May 22, 2009, from www.smarterkids.org. Johnson, R. & Hegarty, J. R. (2003). Websites as educational motivators for adults with learning disability. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 479-486. Kitchen, S. & Finch, S., (2006). Evaluation of Curriculum Online Report of the Third Survey of Schools. Coventry: Becta. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress. Russell, D. L. & Schneiderheinze, A., (2005). Understanding innovation in education using activity theory. Educational Technology & Society, 8, 1, 38-53. Salinitri, G., Smith, K. & Clovis, C. (2002). The aural enabler: Creating a way for special needs kids to participate in the classroom lesson. Retrieved May 22, 2009, from www.smarterkids.org. Seale, J. K. (2001). The same but different: The use of the personal home page by adults with Down syndrome as a tool for self-presentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(3), 343-352. Somekh, B. et al., (2006). Evaluation of the ICT Test Bed Project: Annual Report March 2006. Coventry: Becta.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.